Gordon Brown is facing calls to reform the UK's pension system after many companies have moved to replace pensions linked to pay with cheaper schemes based on contributions.

The chancellor is facing calls to withdraw the dividend tax on pensions, which is costing schemes £5 billion a year, and the removal of the minimum funding requirement - a rule introduced after the Maxwell pensions fraud to ensure the money was always there for pensions.

Forum Response: Unison

Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison told ePolitix.com: "Pensions policy is in total disarray. Companies are backing out of their obligations with impunity - that cannot be allowed to happen.

"We believe that financial security in old age should be the right of every citizen. A cut in pension is a cut in deferred pay. The government should act as a matter of urgency and legislate to stop companies raiding pension funds by unilaterally changing the rules overnight and reducing employee benefits."

"Pensions are currently big news, but for all the wrong reasons. The Equitable Life fiasco, the miserly state pension and the closure of several high-profile "final salary" schemes has put the pensions debate to the fore. And figures released today reveal that young people will now have to work to the age of 72 if they want to guarantee reasonable pension provision.

"In local government, where the average pension is already only £4,000, we have many thousands of workers employed by private companies denied access to the pension scheme and offered membership of inferior ones.

"I will fight tooth and nail to make sure that this generation of workers - delivering local services - are treated fairly. And that they are not the last generation of public service workers to enjoy the right to a decent pension on retirement.

"Money purchase schemes are not a realistic option for many of our members. We think the drift to those schemes is neither inevitable nor unstoppable. Employers are using technical reasons as an excuse to close defined benefit schemes. A good pension costs about 20 per cent of pay. How many of our low paid members could afford that?

"I will be setting out concrete proposals that we expect the government to act on when I meet Ian McCartney and Patricia Hewitt later this week. We have heard today that young people will have to work to 72 years of age to get a decent pension. Unless we act quickly, poverty beckons for many in old age."

Forum Response: Institute of Directors

Richard Baron, deputy head of the policy unit at the Institute of Directors, told ePolitix.com: "People will increasingly have to take decisions on pension savings for themselves. They will only make the right decisions, and avoid being a burden on future taxpayers, if pension funds are attractive products.

"The government really needs to take a more creative approach, changing the rules so as to make the funds more attractive, rather than saying 'these are the rules and they are for your own good'."

Forum Response: The Actuarial Profession

Peter Tompkins, chairman of the Actuarial Profession's pensions board, told ePolitix.com: "The government does need to be honest and open about the impact of any such measures on member security, particularly if, as a consequence, there is an increased chance for some members that the pension they expect will not be delivered.

"We recognise that the government's task is not an easy one - it isn't possible to bolster member protection in occupational pension schemes and at the same time reduce the cash burdens on employers. These are conflicting objectives.

"We welcome the acceptance of the change we recommended to the 'valuation factor' - the market value adjustment (MVA) - to recognise current market conditions and the lower dividend payouts in recent years. This change eases the burdens on employers by reducing the amount needed to meet the MFR. But it also reduces the amount of minimum transfer values for people changing schemes.

"However, we recommended that the government should not implement the removal of annual funding checks, if no workable solution could be found to provide compensating provision to protect members. In the event the government has introduced the dispensation but has decided to apply it to schemes with funding levels lower than we believe wise, especially in current conditions. This causes us concern. "